Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing N.S. Parthasarthy And Ors. vs Padmini Devi And Ors. on 23 April, 1982

Virewder Kumar Bhatnagar vs Chitranjan Kumar Mal on 18 December, 1984

It was because of these reasons that Section 21 was enacted and today the position is that this section has been rendered completely ineffective by misunderstanding the judgment of Krishna lyer, J. in Noronah's case (supra) I had an occasion to analyze the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the decision reported as N.S. Parthasarthy v. Smt. Padmini Devi (supra) , and I am informed that the Special Leave Petition against the said order was also dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Y Dayal - Full Document

Nihal Singh vs Parkash Chand Khurana on 18 February, 1983

9. Learned Counsel for the appellant refers to N.S. Parthasarthy and Ors. v. Padmini Devi and Anr. 22 (1982) D.L.T. 48 wherein the order for recovery of possession was passed without recording any evidence in support of the objections raised by the tenant. In that case the statement of the landlord was recorded. He had given cogent reasons for not requiring premises in question for the specified period. The facts of that case are different and as such not applicable to the instant case. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the Controller and the Tribunal. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ramesh Khanna vs Inder Mohan Lal on 19 July, 1985

Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on N.S. Parthsarthy and Others v. Padmini Devi and Another, 22 (1982) Delhi Law Times 48. A careful reading of the said decision of this Court would show that the same is of no help to the respondent. In that case the landlord had specifically stated in his statement that the petitioners no. 2 and 3 will be married after two years and then the premises will be required. Again at the time of execution in was stated that petitioner no. 3 had in fact got married and the premises were required. Thus the conditions of section 21 were complied with inasmuch as the case of the landlords was that the premises would be required after the limited period because two of the petitioners were of marriageable age and were likely to get married.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1